Pathfinder Wiki talk:Canon policy/chat071409
23:05:16 ‹yoda8myhead› James, a question of canon hierarchy has been raised on the wiki in the last few days, as we try to establish guidelines of how to handle discrepancies within sources. Mind answering a few questions about that sort of thing? 23:06:01 ‹James Jacobs› yoda8myhead: Sure! Fire away! 23:06:25 ‹yoda8myhead› will fiction be considered canon or will it be superceded by sourcebooks? 23:09:11 ‹yoda8myhead› second, should Compleat Encounters be considered canon in any way shape or form? My guess was no because they were never intended to be part of a cohesive world and never went through the same editorial pass as current PF stuff 23:10:58 ‹James Jacobs› yoda8myhead: Fiction, as it appears so far only in the Pathfinder Journal, is canon. It's not tied to a specific date, though, generally. I suspect that most of the Pathfinder Journals take place a decade or two before "this year." 23:11:31 ‹yoda8myhead› and third, is it a safe rule of thumb that the most recent of two conflicting sources should be considered more valid? 23:11:55 ‹James Jacobs› yoda8myhead: Compleat Encounters are not canon. There are elements we've taken from there (like Tar-Baphon, Anghazan, and the Gorilla King), but we changed them a lot. They're not canon at all in their Compleat Encounter incarnation, just curiosities. 23:12:03 ‹Russ› My own personal take is specific source trumps incidental mention. Newer source is dangerous. 23:12:48 ‹yoda8myhead› so any regional sourcebook would always trump the CS? 23:12:51 ‹James Jacobs› yoda8myhead: If there's a conflicting source, you should probably go with the following hierarchy: Pathfinder AP, Pathfinder Chronicle, Pathfinder Companion, and Pathfinder Module, I suppose. 23:13:08 ‹James Jacobs› The Pathfinder Campaign Setting trumps all. For MOST content, at least. 23:13:29 ‹James Jacobs› If a regional sourcebook contradicts the CS, then the regional sourcebook is in error and I am sad. 23:13:35 ‹James Jacobs› For most things. 23:13:37 ‹yoda8myhead› cause I know that some names of organizations were lengthened or altered slightly in Guide to Absalom from the CS 23:13:46 ‹James Jacobs› There are some things in the CS hardcover that I would like to change. 23:13:54 ‹Russ› But in terms of my Greyhawk experience - rather than a rule, I'd suggest you examine the specific conflict. 23:13:59 ‹yoda8myhead› and the Age in which the Pactmasters arrived in Katapesh was different in Dark Markets 23:14:20 ‹James Jacobs› yoda8myhead: I'm not sure why that happened, but I do know that Guide to Absalom's trip from Owen to Publication was Fraught with Peril and Mayhem. So it's probably in error. 23:14:57 ‹Russ› and ideally the wiki could document the conflict 23:15:00 ‹James Jacobs› yoda8myhead: Really... the best thing to do for the wiki would be to list both and indicate a conflict somehow. 23:15:02 ‹yoda8myhead› well, the Harbingers became the Harbingers of Fate 23:15:06 ‹Russ› And perhaps try and reconcile it fan-style 23:15:22 ‹Russ› Sometime it is fun to try and work out things like Karl being a pure Suel with brown hair 23:15:30 ‹yoda8myhead› Russ, we're trying to decide the least disruptive way to do so 23:15:33 ‹Russ› That's how the Duchy of Urnst region came up with "dark blonde" hair 23:15:58 ‹Russ› So Karll was officially pure Suel, but in fact was not - and dark blond is the polite way to refer to his hair 23:15:59 ‹yoda8myhead› we don't want to set the precedent of reconciling things, as we feel it's not our place 23:16:07 ‹James Jacobs› The "reconcile it fan-style" is a great solution, actually. 23:16:15 ‹yoda8myhead› if we set the bar at "canon only" we should ensure we follow that 23:16:20 ‹yoda8myhead› oh, really? 23:16:49 ‹James Jacobs› But if it's really gnawing at you, you might want to shoot me an email and get a ruling. This might or might not get a swift answer from me, depending on what's going on and where I am when I read the email. 23:17:24 * Russ is thankful that Golarion's canon will never be the mess that Greyhawk's is 23:17:29 ‹yoda8myhead› I fear it could be a case by case thing from now on, as we discover them while going through things with a fine-toothed comb, as we now are with the CS (a year late) 23:18:04 ‹yoda8myhead› I'd rather set some guidelines that the wiki community can use their own judgment with in the future instead of bothering you or Wes with it as the amount of canon continues to grow 23:18:09 ‹James Jacobs› yoda8myhead: case by case is fine. 23:18:45 ‹James Jacobs› But for the most part, if it was in a Pathfinder AP you can be pretty sure it's canon. If it's in the PFCS you can be pretty sure it's canon. As you get into the smaller books, that's when errors start creeping in, usually. 23:18:48 ‹yoda8myhead› ok, will do. Though we might ask the questions in a specific thread on the boards so that we can link to the ruling 23:19:35 ‹James Jacobs› Although in a case like a group being called "Harbingers" in one book and "Harbingers of Fate" in the other... if it's obvious that it's the same group, then you can probably take the longer name as canon, and the shorter name as abbreviated canon. 23:19:56 ‹James Jacobs› yoda8myhead: Actually, asking the questions on a messageboard thread is a good way to handle it. 23:20:30 ‹James Jacobs› yoda8myhead: Similar to how I was handling the errata Charles was finding for the book and marking it... although be warned that I can often go for weeks or months without having a chance to look...